HW: punk?

[Paul Mather]

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Chris Bates wrote:

> > hallucinogenics (and mighty fun it is)...... they are more of a
> > psychedelic punk-band than a prog-band.
>
> This punk idea is touted a lot on boc-l, I think it sucks large
> quantities of dead penguin dick. But then I always thought that
> punk was either made by brainless no-talents (Discharge anyone?)
> or was marketing hype.

But don't brainless no-talents and marketing hype infest every corner of
the music industry?  I'm sure it's not confined to punk. :-)

(There *are* good punk bands you know.)

> Years ago Huw Lloyd Langton was interviewd in *Guitarist* - he
> was a columnist for a while - and he claimed HW were yer basic
> blues-based rock band with some synths. A sort of *woke up this
> morning on alpha centauri, my space ship was gone...* thing.
> I'd tend to agree, but I think they (and indeed most British metal
> bands) are blues for the urban Brit so what do I know eh? :-)

I agree with you (especially given Dave Brock's blues background).  I
think the "punk" tag comes from certain aspects often ascribed to punk
(but which I don't think are in the sole domain of punk), e.g., the
generally anti-establishment sentiment, and the idea that it is music "by
the people, for the people," i.e. the fact that you didn't need to have
years of music theory behind you and have to know millions of chords,
scales, and tunings to be able to get a band together with your mates and
play down the local pub.  Both these themes are common to Hawkwind.
Certainly, in the beginning, Hawkwind often harped on about not being able
to play their instruments very well... :-)

Cheers,

Paul.

obCD: The Bevis Frond, _Triptych_

e-mail: paul at csgrad.cs.vt.edu                    A stranger in a strange land.